I seem to recall that you were a large part of the problem with the delay in using the measure G funding. Your indecision led to many delays in using the money. By the way voters must approve bonds and that is no easy task. Districts can’t just snap their fingers and receive a new bond.

Criticizing someone who has been off the board for over 3+ years and a charter school that is not yet in existence, both absolve the current district leadership from having to address:
-why has the current board not planned a 2nd bond in the last 7 years when MVLA has aleady passed their own 2nd bond in that time?
-why was there budget to build a new district office and also substantially increase use of outside contacts/consultants/lawyers relative to the last 10 years?
-why new costly curriculum is rapidly introduced across the district without community/teacher committees or testing of alternatives, leading often to wasteful and exhausting roll back of those same curriculum?
-has the painful firing of four district internally developed principals for four outside the district (most out of state) hires paid off? If things are about the same then what was the point of all that community anguish?

Someone has to ask them.

Let's check the facts:
- The high school district passed Measure in 2010 (ten years ago, not seven as you reference in your comments) and Measure E in 2018. The MVWSD bond was passed in 2012. The district may very well be considering another bond. But, the two voting communities are very different with what they can financially support. Additionally, there is such as thing as bond capacity that has to be considered. You can't ask for another bond if there isn't capacity.
- In fact, MVWSD has many committees on which teachers serve to choose new curriculum.
- There was money in the bond for a new district office because the new, expanded preschool was going to take over the old Stevenson School and it required that the old district office be replaced in order to make that happen. Unfortunately now that Bullis has requested space, that expansion of the preschool won't be able to happen.
- There were three principals who were let go, not four. One of the replacement principals is from out of state. You using alternative facts?

How many new administrative positions have been created under the current Superintendent? The district will change greatly if rent control is repealed next year. Only homeowners and rich tech workers will remain in Mountain View. And there could be thousands of new high-tech offspring needing schools to attend from the dangerous landfill of Google-ville to the new residential highrises ruining neighborhoods across Mountain View previously reserved for single-family homes (see that letter).

Correction: MVLA was 8 years between bonds. And MVWSD is 7 years past its bond. Not necessarily late, except MVWSD recent construction spending will take from general revenue while having budget deficits.
Local Bonds:
MVLA: 4,304 students, $20,882/per pupil spending
June 2010 ($41 million, Measure A)
June 2018 ($295 million, Measure E, 8 Years)

MVWSD: 5,132 students, $13,494/per pupil spending
June 2012 ($198 million, Measure G)
2016 Property loan against currently leased properties ($40 million, $2.6 million/year loss to the budget)
Web Link

To clarify:
4 Removed Principals
1) Graham (Out of district replacement, departing principal was career MVWSD)
2) Landels (Out of state replacement, Illinois, departing principal was career MVWSD)
3) Mistral (Out of state replacement, North Carolina, departing was career MVWSD)
4) Theuerkauf (Out of district replacement, departing principal was career MVWSD)
New School
Vargas (Out of state hire, North Carolina)

To be clear, the new principals are good educators, it's just, so were those they replaced.

Regarding curriculum. A single math curriculum Teach to One was instituted across the district’s middle schools (6th grade) without community or teacher committees to test alternatives prior to selection of one. Before Teach to One was terminated, it cost MVWSD $210,804. Web Link Fine if it was a one time error, yet now a new computer science curriculum by TechSmart will be introduced to four schools/1,800 students without community or teacher committees to select and test alternatives. Initial cost $100,000, initial grant funding. Web Link MVWSD students will greatly benefit from computer science, as they would have also benefited from more personalized math, but weak process has and can jeopardize both.

Seriously Chris??

You can't absolve your responsibility of whatever you think the board might not have done right in the past. YOU were president! YOU couldn't control crazy man Nelson. YOU chose to resign in the middle of your term instead of fighting the good fight and fixing things. You were pathetically WEAK leader. And now all you can do is write oped's critizing people who actually stuck around, or signed up, to fight the good fight?? I am starting to detest your name as much as Nelson's.

So sorry...but I can't take anything you say seriously any more. Get a life.

Correction on the Landels principal. She was assistant principal at Graham for the past few years so she didn’t come directly from out of state. And didn’t you come from out of state to teach here?

Also since you weren’t privy to all of the metrics on which the principals are rated because you are not on the board anymore, you don’t know that they were good principals. That is your opinion as an outsider, not the opinion of staff who actually work at the school.